[MD] Waving goodbye to particles

[Arlo Bensinger]

[John]
But my point then about the MoQ being specifically open-ended and 
receptive to evolution, means that it explicitly leans toward the 
process/DQ aspects, rather than the SQ/artifact side.

[Arlo]
My greater points are that (1) ALL intellectual patterns are equally 
dynamic, they are ALL evolving dialogically, (2) the voice of the 
author does not hinder this, but it encourages it, (3) the ideas 
expressed in Pirsig's metaphysics are stable patterns emanating from 
the wake of, call it, "metaphysicing".

If we see the overall "activity towards Quality", or the "pursuit of 
Quality", as the active context/process for receptiveness to DQ, then 
the ideas that emanate from this are stable patterns of value.

When we talk about "levels", or even the ideas of "Dynamic Quality 
and static quality", or the relationship of the levels, or any of 
these "ideas", we are engaged in a process informed by these stable 
value patterns.

I'm sorry, John, I really think you are confusing the "metaphysics" 
with the "Quality" it seeks to describe. Or perhaps the "ideas" 
Pirsig developed with the act of "thinking" in the first place. Its 
"The Metaphysics (SQ) of Quality (DQ)" (in this sense). The ideas 
expressed that form the structure of the metaphysical system are 
"stable patterns of value" emanating from Pirsig's pursuit of Quality (DQ).

These stable value patterns are never fixed, whether you are talking 
Pirsig, Peirce or Poincare, and in turn inform and shape the ongoing 
pursuit of Quality.

[John]
These terms illustrate my point about the most apt label for what you 
term "stable pattern of values"  And I really wonder at that "stability".

[Arlo]
Well I think there is stability or else we would not even be here 
talking about this. By its very definition, it continues to "persist" 
(in some form) and so it has stability. This does not mean "it" is 
not evolving (and by "it" I mean the body of thinking related to 
Pirsig's Quality thesis), but let's be appreciative it HAS stability, 
or else you would never of even heard of Pirsig.

[John]
I think if we take the MoQ as an artifact, it's failings, as Krimel 
and Dave T have pointed out (and Bo, for that matter) outweigh it's strengths.

[Arlo]
I think we take the ideas expressed by Pirsig and others as patterns 
of value and make them part of our active process of (in the case of 
this forum) building a better and better 
description/definition/analysis of "Quality". For example, the idea 
of "the levels", a way of dividing SQ as I-B-S-I, is a pattern of 
value that has high quality here (I rarely see people coming up with 
other hierarchies, sometimes extending, sure, but I'd say everyone 
here with few exception holds this "idea" as high-quality) and hence 
it has a lot of "stability".

I really don't think anyone here, unless I have misunderstood them, 
is arguing that Pirsig's metaphysical speculations should be treated 
as Holy Writ. What some of us DO say is that evolution is IMPROVED by 
clarity, and (as Matt has said, if I understood) that knowing 
precisely what your interlocutor is saying is the best foundation for 
an evolving dialogue.

We seem to disagree on the "Papal Bull" issue, and I think you are 
(as Matt mentions in his essay) selling the community short. I want 
to know exactly what Pirsig thinks, not so I can uncritically repeat 
his words as "Truth", but so I know exactly where I disagree and 
agree and can formulate a precise response to his ideas. If Pirsig 
"could mean" this, or "could mean" that, or "maybe could be 
interpreted to be saying" something else, then how on earth am I 
supposed to know if I agree with him or not. The dialogue ENDS 
because no one can ever be sure what the other person is really saying.

And now we are back to my comments on how this turns the entire 
dialogue into an interpretive discussion rather than a evolving field 
of ideas. I WANT Pirsig to clarify his ideas about the sociality of 
non-human species, so that I can either better argue with him, or 
extend him thoughts, or contextualize them, or whatever. Not so I can 
blindly accept his word as truth. As it is, now all we can do is 
argue whether or not he "meant" this, or whether or not "he'd agree". 
This is Bo's endless morass that has him claiming Pirsig is a "weak 
interpreter" of his pre-hospitalized self. I mean, if that does not 
represent the lowest form this dialogue can take, I don't know what does.

[John]
If by this you mean that aspects of the MoQ are stable, static 
artifacts, I agree.  But taken as a whole, I see the entire thing as a process.

[Arlo]
Well, again, the "process" is the active dialogue of which stable 
patterns of value (Pirsig's ideas) are part. His "metaphysics" are 
the stable patterns of value emanating from this process. The 
"process" is the pursuit of Quality that creates and is shaped by 
value patterns in its wake.

What aspect of Pirsig's metaphysics do you see as NOT a stable 
pattern of value? That it references Dynamic Quality as pre-intellectual?

[John]
An active wave-like phenomenon that some of us surf, and some of us 
get rolled and squashed by.

[Arlo]
I like the wave metaphor.

[John]
Of course.  But as I said, there is a value to proper descriptive 
labels and the best label for the MoQ as a whole, is a process, not 
an artifact.

[Arlo]
The best label would be to back up and see the process as "pursuing 
Quality" (via metaphysicing) and seeing the Metaphysics of Quality 
(Pirsig's ideas as the nature of Quality) as patterns of value that 
emanate from this and inform the evolution of this process.

[John]
Tell that one to dmb, who seems to think all definitions are neatly 
encapsulated by academics and bequeathed to their kind via wiki and SEP.

[Arlo]
I can't speak for DMB, but I've always read him to also believe that 
clarity and precision encourages the evolutionary process. Its not 
about setting things forever in stone, its being clear and precise 
about what the dialogue you are responding to, what you are saying, 
and how you anticipate being interpretted.